A number of nonprofits have lived well and prospered with the affiliation of a celebrity. Really, just name a celebrity and you can probably find an affiliated celebrity. But some nonprofits are started by celebrities and they too live and prosper with that celebrity's involvement. Michael J Fox comes to mind to me as does Willie Nelson (FarmAid) and quite a few others.
We know for a fact that celebrity status and brand can be a plus for any product or service (does William Shatner count?) but the risks are also clear and I for one do not have at my fingertips the research that indicates what happens to the value of a service or product when the celebrity's name is sullied.
I bring this up because in today's Chronicle of Philanthropy news the story on Lance Armstrong and the charity he founded, Livestrong, says that a celebrity can walk away and not negatively affect the brand value of the charity. In fact, Livestrong claims to have had an increase in income since Mr. Armstrong's departure.
One explanation could be that Mr. Armstrong's strategy was to create a charity whose offerings are so desireable, his presence would not be relevant. I'm willing to accept that this was indeed his business strategy, at least according to the evidence.
Lessons are plenty here -- feel free to share your thinking.
Comments